Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law of the USA that serves to protect cultural property .

Map of the American Indian Reservations

The law covers the protection of gravesites , human remains and grave goods, as well as cult objects of indigenous peoples within the United States - that is, Indians , Hawaiians and the natives of Alaska , insofar as they are owned by the federal government or by federally funded institutions. It also regulates the return and reburial of these items.

history

prehistory

A market for objects from the cultures of the indigenous peoples emerged during the colonial period. Collectors, state and private institutions were interested in relevant objects, and finds are important sources for researching the settlement and history of America. This often happened under the premise that the indigenous cultures of North America were doomed anyway. Forced resettlements, displacement into reservations and compulsory assimilation also led to a rapid loss of control of the indigenous people over their cultural objects. While the European-American culture rated such objects as objects of use and art , the indigenous people did not know this classification. In their cultures , the decisive factor is often whether objects have a ritual meaning .

Human remains were also traded on a small scale. Here, however, losses due to changes in land use, construction work or archaeological excavations , if burial sites were affected, are in the foreground. In principle, gravesites are protected in the USA, but only if they can be recognized as such above ground. In addition, in many indigenous groups the dead continue to be closely related to the living, which means that the land in which they were buried is closely related to the living. Against this background operations such desecration (have desecration ) or error ( disturbance ) of a tomb or the prevention of a funeral a deeper cultural significance. As a result, the reburial of the dead or the transport to a museum has a completely different meaning than for the non-indigenous population. In addition, Indian remains were often treated less respectfully than those of the European population.

Religious beliefs are protected by the United States Constitution . With the growing self-confidence of individual indigenous groups, which was reflected in their own jurisprudence and administration, the power of disposal over important evidence of their own culture also became a question of self-determination, which had an impact on Indian policy in the United States .

Precedent: Kansas City Indian Cemetery

Since 1800, the use of the Native American cemetery grounds in Kansas City was controversial between the Wyandot in Kansas and those in Oklahoma . The inner-Indian conflict over the use of the cemetery area between the Wyandot in Kansas and those in Oklahoma, which had been going on since 1800, was only resolved in 1998 by an agreement between the two tribes, in which the commercial exploitation of the area was waived.

In 1909, the conflict became known nationwide through Lyda Conley , who, against the intention of selling the Wyandot tribal officials, enforced the protection of the Indian cemetery with gun in hand and then through legal action. Conley endured numerous government trials and in 1909 became the first Native American woman to appear before the United States Supreme Court . The interest of tribal officials in acting economically and of US citizens (including) of Indian origin interested in preserving traditional culture, such as Conley, were expressed in such disputes. The 1916 Charles Curtis Cemetery Protection Act in Kansas City was the first to protect an Indian burial site in this way.

Science as a conflict field

Legal protection of indigenous cultic interests was opposed to those of archeology , organized in the Society for American Archeology (SAA), ethnology , organized in the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA), and the museums of the corresponding subject areas. They feared for access to the objects as scientific sources and as exhibits. Research questions on the colonization of America , archeology in North America and the history of the Indians of North America can only be answered with difficulty or research becomes impossible if access to the relevant objects is limited. Shortly before NAGPRA was passed in 1990, public institutions reported that they were in possession of around 14,500 human relics that were subject to the law. The SAA and AAPA were involved in the negotiations in the legislative process and ultimately approved the draft.

precursor

Maria Pearson (Hai-Mecha Eunka, 1932-2003) was a Yanktonai Sioux . She is considered to be the catalyst for the initiative that led to the 1990 law. Her husband, an employee of the Iowa Department of Transportation , told her in the 70 years of grave finds in Glenwood ( Iowa ). The remains of 26 whites were immediately reburied while the remains of Indians (a mother with her child) were scientifically investigated. Maria Pearson wanted to complain to Governor Robert Ray about this and sat in front of his office in traditional clothing. She demanded the return of the "bones" of her people and an end to the excavations. In 1976, as a result, the Iowa Burials Protection Act was passed, the first US law to protect Native American graves.

The law

At the federal level, the cause was largely carried by Senator John McCain from Arizona . He put forward the first bill that eventually became NAGPRA. It was passed on November 16, 1990. It applies to the work of all federal authorities as well as to research institutions and museums that receive federal funding. The Smithsonian Institution is exempt from this law, but is subject to the National Museum of American Indian Act of 1989. Numerous ordinances are based on NAGPRA that regulate repatriation and provide procedures and institutions for it, including a specialist unit with the National Park Service who oversees the implementation of the law.

content

The law applies to all items that are already in federal institutions or other institutions whose work is funded by federal funds. It also applies to new finds on federal or tribal land and on land that has been ceded to states by the federal government under the provisions of the Water Resources Department Act , regardless of whether the new finds are made by chance or as part of archaeological excavations. The law does not apply on private property.

Federal institutions or other institutions whose work is funded by federal funds are obliged to compile a list of human remains and objects that are grave goods or of cultic significance. This is used to determine those entitled to dispose and, if necessary, to initiate procedures for the return. The living relatives of the deceased or descendants of the original users of the item are entitled to dispose of it.

Legislators have tried to strike a balance between the scientific interests in an investigation of the remains and the recognition of the religious and spiritual interests of the indigenous people. In the case of new finds, a short, appropriate investigation is permissible. Representatives of the indigenous people, who are authorized to dispose, must be involved in the selection of the investigation methods. Nonetheless, NAGPRA partly regards archeology as an obstacle to research.

Archaeologists who expect to come across such remains during excavations are obliged to make arrangements with those authorized to dispose of them as early as the planning phase of the excavation. Digging on tribal land is only permitted with the consent of those entitled to dispose of it. In the event of incidental discoveries , short deadlines for appropriate consultations must be observed. Legal documentation must be provided.

Any trade in the corresponding items is prohibited.

The authorized Indian peoples bury the human remains given back as well as the grave goods and cult objects. As far as they are made of weathering material, the objects usually perish as a result, since they only existed long enough to be found for the first time thanks to the unusually good preservation conditions.

consequences

By the end of 2007, 32,000 human remains had been returned due to the NAGPRA, almost 670,000 grave goods, 120,000 other objects outside the sepulkral area and 3500 cult objects.

The communication between archaeologists, museums and indigenous people has been significantly intensified by these NAGPRA regulations.

additions

The debates about the law lasted intensely until the supplementary resolutions in 2010. The main controversial issue was how the remains of the deceased and objects should be dealt with if no person entitled to dispose could be identified. This is especially the case when finds date from prehistoric times .

Example: The Kennewick Man Controversy

On July 28, 1996, the Kennewick man was discovered at Kennewick in Washington State . The surrounding tribes of the Umatilla , Colville , Yakama and Nez Percé considered him an ancestor and demanded his burial, as Kennewick is in the traditional area of ​​the Umatilla. The excavators, on the other hand, assumed that there was no connection to the current tribes and that the man had no genetic relationship with the claiming Indians.

Assignment of prehistoric finds

A draft to solve the problem was presented in 2007, and a new version of the guidelines was published in 2010. The federal government stipulates that the remains should be handed over for burial to the tribe on whose territory they were found (principle of territoriality ).

The SAA objected that the funeral should not be stipulated as the only option, but that a different agreement should be possible in individual cases. In addition, investigations should also be expressly permitted for finds whose assignment is unknown. In the event of a dispute between indigenous groups regarding the right to dispose of a find, cultural institutions should also be exempted from complaints by the other side if the institution transfers the finds to the other side due to the law. The authorities did not respond to these suggestions.

literature

  • Roxana Adams: Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act , American Association of Museums, 2001.
  • Jo Carrillo: Readings in American Indian Law: Recalling the Rhythm of Survival , Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1998.
  • Kathleen S. Fine-Dare: Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA , University of Nebraska Press 2002.
  • Peter N. Jones: Respect for the Ancestors: American Indian Cultural Affiliation in the American West , Boulder: Bäuu Press 2005.
  • Angela R. Riley: Indian Remains, Human Rights: Reconsidering Entitlement under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act , in: Columbia Human Rights Law Review 49 (2002-2003) 49-94.
  • Jack F. Trope, Walter R. Echo-Hawk: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History , in: Arizona State Law Journal 24 (1992) 35-77.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ^ Homepage of the Wyandot Nation of Kansas .
  2. ↑ Kim Dayton: Trespassers, Beware! Lyda Burton Conley and the Battle for Huron Place Cemetery (Unauthorized entry prohibited, Linda Conley and the battle for the Huron Place cemetery). In: Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, Vol 8, No 1 (1995)
  3. ↑ Jo Carrillo, Jo (Eds.): Readings In American Indian Law , Temple University Press 1998, p. 169.
  4. ↑ DM Gradwohl, DM, JB Thomson, MJ Perry: Still Running: A Tribute to Maria Pearson, Yankton Sioux = special edition of the Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 52 (2005). The title refers to the translation of their indigenous name ( Hai-Mecha Eunka ), which means running moccasin . Maria D. Peason: Give Me Back My People's Bones: Repatriation and Reburial of American Indian Skeletal Remains in Iowa , in: Gretchen M. Bataille, David M. Gradwohl, Charles LP Silet (Eds.): Perspectives on American Indians in Iowa , University of Iowa Press, 2000, pp. 131-141.
  5. ↑ National Park Service: NAGPRA - Frequently Asked Questions in the version of October 29, 2018.
  6. ^ William C Canby Jr .: American Indian Law , St. Paul: West 2004, p. 276.
  7. ↑ Renee Kosslak: Native American Graves Protection Act , University of Dayton.
  8. ↑ Georgina Tom: NAGPRA - Overview and Controversy , December 12, 2007.
  9. ↑ A bibliography provides Reburial and Repatriation ( Memento of 12 October 2008 at the Internet Archive ), Legal Anthropology.
  10. ↑ Glynn Custred: The Forbidden Discovery of Kennewick Man , in: Academic Questions 13.3 (2000) pp 12-30. FP McManamon: Kennewick Man , National Park Service, May 2004 . See also: David Hurst Thomas: Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity , Basic Books 2001.
  11. ^ Department of the Interior: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations — Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains; Final Rule - 43 CFR Part 10 (PDF; 285 kB), in: Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 49, v. March 15, 2010, pp. 12378-12405.
  12. ↑ SAA: Comments on Department of Interior Final Rule On Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains under NAGPRA (PDF; 37 kB) from May 11, 2010.